Re: Legality of chaining Bicycles to footway apparatus



N

Not Responding

Guest
Chris Armstrong wrote:
> "I'll often park my bike in a car bay
>
>>using the sidestand if it'll hinder pedestrians locked to a

>
> lamppost."
> Well, I think it's pretty anti-social of these lyrca louts to be
> locking pedestrians to lampposts. Live and let live is what I say.
>
>


:) As soon as I pressed the send button I realised I could probably have
phrased that a bit better.
 
S

Simon Brooke

Guest
in message <[email protected]>, JNugent
('[email protected]') wrote:

> I certainly "have a problem" with wasted carriageway space, which is
> what was being suggested by others in the thread, and "a problem" with
> bikes being left on the footway (whether outside or inside safety
> barriers makes no difference except to which other category of
> road-user suffers the resultant inconvenience and/or danger).
>
> Bikes can easily be lifted across a footway and "parked" (ie, left)
> off-street.


You can equally easily leave your car at home and not 'waste carriageway
space'. Am I, using up five feet by two feet of valuable 'carriageway
space' to park a vehicle at the end of a journey for one person more or
less antisocial than someone who uses up fourteen by six feet of
carriageway space to park a vehicle at the end of a journey for one
person?

> There is simply no need to waste precious tarmac on
> facilities for stationary "parked" bikes (because they are light and
> can be carried off-street with no problem - even inside buildings) and
> certainly no argument for allowing then to be left on footways.


Fine. You lift your car and carry it, I'll lift my bike and carry it,
and we'll both leave that precious tarmac clear. Until you do that
you're just a hypocrite.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
Ring of great evil
Small one casts it into flame
Bringing rise of Men ;; gonzoron
 
S

Simon Brooke

Guest
in message <[email protected]>, JNugent
('[email protected]') wrote:

> Brimstone wrote:
>
>> JNugent wrote:
>>> JohnB wrote:
>>>> Helen Deborah Vecht wrote:
>>>>> JohnB <[email protected]>typed

>
>>>>>> There is nothing illegal or selfish about parking cycles on the
>>>>>> road.

>
>>>>> If parking other vehicles there is permitted...

>
>>>> Quite.
>>>> Mr Nugent seemed to have a problem with that.

>
>>> I certainly "have a problem" with wasted carriageway space, which is
>>> what was being suggested by others in the thread, and "a problem"
>>> with bikes being left on the footway (whether outside or inside
>>> safety barriers makes no difference except to which other category
>>> of road-user suffers the resultant inconvenience and/or danger).

>
>>> Bikes can easily be lifted across a footway and "parked" (ie, left)
>>> off-street. There is simply no need to waste precious tarmac on
>>> facilities for stationary "parked" bikes (because they are light and
>>> can be carried off-street with no problem - even inside buildings)
>>> and certainly no argument for allowing then to be left on footways.
>>> The same rules that apply to other road-users are relevant in
>>> respect of footways - one might have expected no argument about it.

>
>> Are you seriously suggesting that people should take their bikes into
>> shops, restaurants or whatever?

>
> Not if they are customers, but they should still find somewhere lawful
> and non-obstructive to "park" bikes (just like other vehicle-users who
> are customers of such establishments), and if a charge has to be made,
> that's as OK for a bike it is as for a motor vehicle - I'm sure you
> agree.


Hang on. You're allowed to park your car at the kerb because it's legal.
It's equally legal to park a bike there - and, indeed, it is often the
_only_ legal place to park a bike. So it's lawful, and it's certainly
much less obstructive to park a bike there than a car there. Isn't it?

So if I'm going to go into town and park while I go into a restaurant,
and I'm going to park my vehicle at the kerb, would you prefer I take
my car or my bike? Which would be less obstructive to you? I should
warn you that my car is a large 4x4.

> Fairness, consideration and safety.
>
> Not much to ask, is it?


No, indeed.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; single speed mountain bikes: for people who cycle on flat mountains.
 
N

Nick Finnigan

Guest
"Simon Brooke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
>
> Hang on. You're allowed to park your car at the kerb because it's legal.
> It's equally legal to park a bike there


Not quite: you'd need lights on a bike at night.
 
M

Mark McNeill

Guest
Response to congokid:
> Perhaps we can expect in future to see 'No 'no bicycles to be chained
> here' signs' signs?


Sadly www.whatshouldiputonthefence.com seems to have gone to the great
gig in the sky; but www.waybackmachine.org has bits of it.


--
Mark, UK

"Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who
are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it."
 
N

Not Responding

Guest
Nick Finnigan wrote:
> "Simon Brooke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>
>>Hang on. You're allowed to park your car at the kerb because it's legal.
>>It's equally legal to park a bike there

>
>
> Not quite: you'd need lights on a bike at night.
>


Can you elaborate? On a 30mph limit road (where lights are not required
for parked motor vehicles) are you saying that there is a requirement
for parked bikes to be lit?
 
P

Paul D

Guest
On Sat, 7 May 2005 19:20:49 +0100, "JNugent" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Then we may be somewhere on the same wavelength. I distinguish "garaging"
>(ie, parking at or near the home) from "parking" (ie, at the other end of
>the journey made from home).


I don't.

The both end up with cars cluttering the streets.

>> Compared with the total visual devastation caused by cars and
>> lorries, I don't think it would even appear on the radar.


>The owners don't seem to agree with you.


That comment is quite illogical. Since they can do nothing about cars despoiling
the view, there is no way you can guage the relative dislike they have simply
because they try to prevent the only instance they can.

>Pedestrians often do use such strips (our assessments of the value of
>"often" may differ, but it does happen).


Probably only when they are after a Darwin award. It's a very, very stupid thing
to do.

>It isn't easy. But it is possible (and safer than being entirely on the
>carriageway).


But about 100 times less safe than being on the correct side of the railings ;-)

>> He didn't suggest they made a right, it's just the for most people,
>> the groups whom he enumerated are a great deal more trouble than
>> someone thoughtlessly parking a bike (which, as I've mentioned
>> before, I've never come across, probably because bike riders are
>> aware that inconsiderately parked machines are a very easy target for
>> retaliatory action by an annoyed pedstrian).

>
>I wouild never advocate criminal damge.


Fascinating, but a complete non-sequitur.
 
J

JNugent

Guest
Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

> <[email protected]> wrote:


>>>> I distinguish "garaging"
>>>> (ie, parking at or near the home) from "parking" (ie, at the other
>>>> end of the journey made from home).


>>> Never heard of on-street parking, residents' permits and such?


>> Of course.
>> But that is an inaccurate and nebulous use of language which is
>> unhelpful as an aid to understanding the topic.


> Really? So calling on-street parking at home "garaging" is not
> nebulous and unhelpful in understanding the topic?


Which particular bit of the comprehensive explanation: "I distinguish
"garaging" (ie, parking at or near the home) from "parking" (ie, at the
other end of the journey made from home)" do you fail to understand?

Please be specific in your response (if any).

> Well well. Could
> you just explain, for the hard of understanding, the essential
> difference between the Mercedes which parks outside no. 2 every day
> while its owner is at work and the BMW which parks across the junction
> in the evening making it damn near impossible to turn into our road
> without shunting?


Let's see now...

Try... if no resident on-street garaging were allowed in the neighbourhood
(the ideal), and if obstructive parking were specifically banned and
enforced (other than as a mere concept in the Highway Code), no-one would be
able (or find it necessary) to park on a corner.

No charge for the explanation of the bleedin' obvious.

> The simple truth is, cars are just about the least space-efficient
> form of urban transport available, especially when not being used
> (which is most of the time of course). Bikes are very
> space-efficient.


<yawn>
 
P

Paul D

Guest
On Sat, 7 May 2005 22:54:40 +0100, "JNugent" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>But then, my sentence: "I distinguish "garaging" (ie, parking at or near the
>home) from "parking" (ie, at the other end of the journey made from home)"
>makes the position absolutely clear (except perhaps for illterates).


It makes clear only the fact that you are making a quite pointless distinction
in orer to allow yourself to pursue your similarly quite pointless case.
 
P

Paul D

Guest
On Sat, 7 May 2005 22:59:51 +0100, "JNugent" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Which particular bit of the comprehensive explanation: "I distinguish
>"garaging" (ie, parking at or near the home) from "parking" (ie, at the
>other end of the journey made from home)" do you fail to understand?


There is no problem with comprehension. It's just that no one gives a flying
**** that you make a personal distinction that serves no logical purpose other
than to allow you to continue to prosecute a stupid argument.

> Could
>> you just explain, for the hard of understanding, the essential
>> difference between the Mercedes which parks outside no. 2 every day
>> while its owner is at work and the BMW which parks across the junction
>> in the evening making it damn near impossible to turn into our road
>> without shunting?

>
>Let's see now...
>
>Try... if no resident on-street garaging were allowed in the neighbourhood
>(the ideal), and if obstructive parking were specifically banned and
>enforced (other than as a mere concept in the Highway Code), no-one would be
>able (or find it necessary) to park on a corner.


Now can you translate that into English? As this is a UK newsgroup, not many
people are likely to understand gobbledegook.
 
J

Just zis Guy, you know?

Guest
On Sat, 7 May 2005 22:59:51 +0100, "JNugent"
<[email protected]> wrote in message
<[email protected]>:

>>>>> I distinguish "garaging"
>>>>> (ie, parking at or near the home) from "parking" (ie, at the other
>>>>> end of the journey made from home).


>>>> Never heard of on-street parking, residents' permits and such?


>>> Of course.
>>> But that is an inaccurate and nebulous use of language which is
>>> unhelpful as an aid to understanding the topic.


>> Really? So calling on-street parking at home "garaging" is not
>> nebulous and unhelpful in understanding the topic?


>Which particular bit of the comprehensive explanation: "I distinguish
>"garaging" (ie, parking at or near the home) from "parking" (ie, at the
>other end of the journey made from home)" do you fail to understand?
>Please be specific in your response (if any).


As stated elsewhere, I was perfectly clear about the distinction you
draw, I just think it is bogus. Around here it is hard to tell
whether a parked car is a resident or a commuter. The problem is the
same either way.

>Try... if no resident on-street garaging were allowed in the neighbourhood
>(the ideal), and if obstructive parking were specifically banned and
>enforced (other than as a mere concept in the Highway Code), no-one would be
>able (or find it necessary) to park on a corner.


See, there's that word "garaging" again. Why use a word whose meaning
is clearly understood by most people to mean something else, when a
perfectly good word (parking) already exists, which has no ambiguity
about it? Pointless.

>> The simple truth is, cars are just about the least space-efficient
>> form of urban transport available, especially when not being used
>> (which is most of the time of course). Bikes are very
>> space-efficient.


><yawn>


Translation: "Tra la la la la, I'm not listening."


Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken
 
P

Paul D

Guest
On Sun, 08 May 2005 08:54:18 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>See, there's that word "garaging" again. Why use a word whose meaning
>is clearly understood by most people to mean something else, when a
>perfectly good word (parking) already exists, which has no ambiguity
>about it? Pointless.


It's as bogus as the 'distinction' he's making.

He seems to belong to the 'humpty-dumpty' school of English usage.
 
J

JNugent

Guest
Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

> <[email protected]> wrote:


[ ... ]

>>>>>> I distinguish "garaging"
>>>>>> (ie, parking at or near the home) from "parking" (ie, at the
>>>>>> other end of the journey made from home).


[ ... ]

> As stated elsewhere, I was perfectly clear about the distinction you
> draw, I just think it is bogus. Around here it is hard to tell
> whether a parked car is a resident or a commuter. The problem is the
> same either way.


Of course it is.

But if people were *prevented* by law from garaging on-street (with
appropriately severe penalties for breach or attempts, whether by mere
non-compliance or by deception), the difference would become clear.

>> Try... if no resident on-street garaging were allowed in the
>> neighbourhood (the ideal), and if obstructive parking were
>> specifically banned and enforced (other than as a mere concept in
>> the Highway Code), no-one would be able (or find it necessary) to
>> park on a corner.


> See, there's that word "garaging" again. Why use a word whose meaning
> is clearly understood by most people to mean something else, when a
> perfectly good word (parking) already exists, which has no ambiguity
> about it? Pointless.


It is far from pointless. Using two distinct terms (with similar but not
identical meanings) is normal and everyday in discussion. And using the term
"garaging" is simpler than repeating the phrase "at-home parking".

>>> The simple truth is, cars are just about the least space-efficient
>>> form of urban transport available, especially when not being used
>>> (which is most of the time of course). Bikes are very
>>> space-efficient.


>> <yawn>


> Translation: "Tra la la la la, I'm not listening."


I will proffer this more real translation:

That's nothing to do with the issue. But widening the question well beyond
the scope of the thread, bikes have their own severe limitations which
render them unsuitable for the real world everyday requirements of most
people, no matter how useful they undoubtedly are to a minority for everyday
transport for commuting and to a larger minority for leisure and exercise.
There is nothing wrong with riding a bike, and I have never claimed that
there is. Let's just not run away with the idea that you can run your
teenage child and their possessions 175 miles to university and back by bike
(for instance), stopping at Sainsbury's on the way to stock up with
provisions. There are many examples as telling as that. Horses for courses,
and more power to the knees of cyclists.
 
P

Paul D

Guest
On Sun, 8 May 2005 10:02:20 +0100, "JNugent" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>I *explained* my terms and use the word "garaging"


Nobody cares about you silly explanation. The world isn't going to change its
understanding of the term just because it suits "j nugent", despite the size of
his ego.

>What I'm saying is that no-one should be allowed to permanently arrogate a
>stretch of the highway for their own exclusive use.


Nobody is. Even where there is residents parking, if's FCFS.

Although it seems an alien concept to you, sometimes communites *are* allowed to
prefential access to the resources of the area in which they live.

Learn to live with it.

>
>After a little thought (difficult for you, I know), you'll probably get to
>grips with the concept: "all of the road is for everyone's use".


But it quite plainly isn't.

Apart from No parking areas, we have bus lanes and cycle lanes.

It's a matter for the duly elected representatives to decide, not "j nugent".
>
>[ ... ]
>
>> What has the fact that a house is terraced or otherwise have to do
>> with the ownership of the adjacent road.

>
>> Absolutely nothing.

>
>I agree.
>
>Unfortunately, too many people seem to think that they nevertheless do have
>some superior rights over the road adjacent to their home.


Yes, and many people agree that they should have, but that doesn't explain your
lame brained comment about terraced houses and flats, which seemed to be more
concerned with some ego thing about your semi-detached!

>We certainly have garaging facilities ("off-street parking" if you prefer
>the estate-agent's term) for all our vehicles.


You mean you park them on your drive.

>
>> [1] From OED complete edition:

>
>[snipped incomplete definition]


It was not an incomplete definition. If you believe that it is, perhaps you'd
quote the part of the definition I ommited.
 
P

Paul D

Guest
On Sun, 8 May 2005 10:13:15 +0100, "JNugent" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>But if people were *prevented* by law from garaging on-street


They are. You try building a garage on the street and see how quickly the law
does something about it.


>> See, there's that word "garaging" again. Why use a word whose meaning
>> is clearly understood by most people to mean something else, when a
>> perfectly good word (parking) already exists, which has no ambiguity
>> about it? Pointless.

>
>It is far from pointless.


Actually, he's right. His continual incorrect usage of a common and well difined
word alerts all readers to the fact that he's a prize pratt.

>I will proffer this more real translation:


Translation:

I'm going to use my own version of English in the same lame-brained way I do wth
the word "garage".

>That's nothing to do with the issue.


Translation:

It doesn't fit in with my prejudicies about the subject so I'm going to stick my
fingers in my ears and go "Dum - di - dum - di - dum - di - dum" until you stop
talking about it.
 
J

JohnB

Guest
"Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote:

> (which is most of the time of course). Bikes are very
> space-efficient. Especially the new bike I've just ordered which,
> when parked, takes up a space approximately 22" long and high, and
> under 10" wide. Most cars are bigger than that crushed!


You're not going for the extended seatpost then?

John B
 
P

Paul D

Guest
On Sun, 08 May 2005 10:26:49 +0000, Jon Senior
<jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOT_co_DOT_uk> wrote:


>"Term of art":
>http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/tutorials/definitions/term_art.html (First
>hit).
>
>trans: the use of legalese to obfuscate plain English.


What our hard of thinking friend does not seem to appreciate is that a term f
art is only meaningful amongst a set of people who AGREE ITS MEANING.

It's not a mechanism for any plonker to redefine a well understood word of the
English language at whim.
 
J

JNugent

Guest
Jon Senior wrote:

> JNugent wrote:


>> I *explained* my terms and use the word "garaging" as a term of art
>> for "at home parking". Why wrote "at home parking" every time, when
>> "garaging" is so easily distinguishable from "(any old) parking"?


> Tip: When commenting on the correct use of English, it is well worth
> double checking for typos (The error is left as an exercise for the
> reader).


Yes, I see it. :)

My excuse: The "i" and the "o" are adjacent (and I've done the same thing in
the word "anti" below).

>> What I'm saying is that no-one should be allowed to permanently
>> arrogate a stretch of the highway for their own exclusive use. It is
>> that arrogation of a public asset for private use which is the
>> selfish act.


> You are right. Use of any part of the public highway for parking is
> selfish. This of course extends to both at-home parking, and
> journey's-end parking.


As a matter of unalloyed ideals, I can see the point you are making, but for
very practical reasons, I can't agree with that more extreme position. Taken
literally, it would mean that no journey could ever be made by motor vehicle
(other than by taxi) unless the vehicle-occupants knew in advance that there
was an off-street space available for their use at their destination - which
may be in a residential road where there are simply no off-street parking
facilities available to them (even if there are enough - or none - for the
residents). It would be the equivalent of insisting that each car was
preceded by a man on foot carrying a red flag - it would have much the same
effect for most people.

> Parked cars pose a threat to pedestrian
> visibility when trying to cross roads and to cyclists both on account
> of reduced visibility and the danger of being "doored". Can we assume
> then that you would support the removal of all vehicles onto off-road
> parking such as centralised multi-storey or underground complexes.


Where they are available, I could support that, although the facilities I
most readily envisage consist of the usual off-street driveway and/or
garage, since we are principally discussing residential quarters rather than
shopping and business areas. AFAICS, what you suggest is already the
situation in most city and town centres (unless one is lucky enough to be
given an off-street space at work or by a retailer). Where the street has to
be kept clear for traffic purposes, double yellows are used. For less
essential inner-city streets, most councils can't resist the easy income to
be made from meters or ticket-issuing machines, which I suppose at least has
the virtue of rationing the kerbside space.

> There would have to be some exemption for deliveries, but since the
> parking attendents would no longer have to worry about issuing
> tickets to "normal" cars, they would have time to monitor deliveries
> for any sign of abuse.


> > There are societies
>> which do not allow it. Perhaps (especially in places like London),
>> we should be considering trying the same approach. It might work
>> much better as an anto-congestion measure than fining people who
>> have business in Central London, and it might well ease congestion
>> in the suburbs as well as on the capital's roads in general.


> Strange... you see "fine", I see "toll". If you just pay the "toll",
> you wont get the "fine". ;-)


I prefer the word "fine". Mad Ken regards all drivers as offenders just for
having the effrontery to drive.

Well, except for bus and taxi-drivers.

>> After a little thought (difficult for you, I know), you'll probably
>> get to grips with the concept: "all of the road is for everyone's
>> use".


> Indeed, see above for my (mini-)treatise on the elimination of on-road
> parking.


Indeed. Yours is a rather more extreme position than mine, but perhaps we
are along the same vector.

>> We certainly have garaging facilities ("off-street parking" if you
>> prefer the estate-agent's term) for all our vehicles.


>>> [1] From OED complete edition:


>> [snipped incomplete definition - and respectfully suggest that the
>> PP looks up the phrase "term of art"]


> "Term of art":
> http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/tutorials/definitions/term_art.html
> (First hit).


> trans: the use of legalese to obfuscate plain English.


More accurately: "a phrase which has a meaning which is more than the
consituent words suggest". One can also think of it as as jargon or an
abbreviation.

> To explain why your concept of garaging is meaningless I offer the
> following:


> I stand on a residential road. Without knowing the owners of the
> various cars that I can see parked, I do not know whether they are
> local or visitors. A parked car is a parked car; it still
> appropriates some quantity of the public highway for personal use.
> The proximity of that vehicle to the owner's property has no bearing
> on the selfishness of the act.


I don't agree.

Take the example of a resident who has a garage and space for two cars
off-street, yet chooses to leave one of the household's two cars on the
road, so that (a) no-one else can park there, and (b) so that he and his
wife do not have to "shuffle" when the car farthest up the driveway is being
used. Lots of people do that, nd it is arguably selfish - more so because it
is unnecessary.

Then take the example of a couple who go several times a year to a
university town to visit their son or daughter who is studying there. They
stay for four or five hours before returning... but the address at which the
student lives is in a residential road and there is no off-street parking.
Disregarding impractical and extraordinarily-contrived and expensive
"solutions" like parking several miles away in a town centre car-park and
taking a taxi there and back, it is hard to see that this is anything other
than a very reasonable use of the road as parking space.

Is the resident parker being selfish? I think there is a good case for
saying that he is. His actions are unnecessary on any reasonable reading of
the situation.

Is the visiting parent being selfish? Of course not. Unless they can park,
their journey is wasted.

Where your problem (standing on the residential road) could be addressed is
by making garaging (at-home parking if you prefer) unlawful. Then you would
know that the cars belonged either to legitimmate visitors or to
law-breakers. There would need to be a regime of severe penalty for
deliberate breach - especially by deception as to correct residential
address - as the system would probably have to work largely on trust.
 
J

JNugent

Guest
Not Responding wrote:

> JNugent wrote:


>> What I'm saying is that no-one should be allowed to permanently
>> arrogate a stretch of the highway for their own exclusive use. It is
>> that arrogation of a public asset for private use which is the
>> selfish act. There are societies which do not allow it. Perhaps
>> (especially in places like London), we should be considering trying
>> the same approach. It might work much better as an anto-congestion
>> measure than fining people who have business in Central London, and
>> it might well ease congestion in the suburbs as well as on the
>> capital's roads in general.


> Not quite clear what you're proposing but anything to reduce the
> number of cars is surely to be welcomed.


I suppose it would have that effect (and I understand that it is enforced in
Tokyo as an anti-congestion measure), though that is not the principal
reason for my suggesting it.

[ ... ]

>> Unfortunately, too many people seem to think that they nevertheless
>> do have some superior rights over the road adjacent to their home.
>> Sometimes they even persuade a local authority to ban parking there,
>> so that they (the residents) can have exclusive garaging rights
>> there, on the highway.


> I've got mixed feelings about residents' parking schemes. On the one
> hand, it's attractive; reduces the available in-town parking space and
> therefore reduces the number of people travelling by car.


More realistically, it probably forces them to pay for all-day parking in a
public car-park (speak to the workers in a town-centre office about the
hassle of having to go and move the car at lunchtime in order to avoid the
penalty charges which apply after about 4 hours) and thereby creates more
competition for those facilities, to the possible detriment of shoppers.
It's hard to see who this benefits.

> OTOH, if the roadspace has value (as is the case where there is
> competition for parking) then the local authority should really be
> considering the degree to which local taxpayers are happy to subsidise
> those particular residents by giving them free parking.


> The answer is to simply charge for all on-road parking and let the
> market decide who uses it. It both reduces the attraction of driving
> because of the higher costs and the revenues raised reduce the council
> tax burden on everyone.


Again, I see your point. There would still have to be a charging/no charging
boundary drawn somewhere, unless you are suggesting that all streets should
have pay-parking, no matter how far from a town centre and how uncongested.
I couldn't go along with that.

>> But like you, I take the view that occupation (not necessarily
>> ownership) of a particular property does not grant exclusive rights
>> over the adjacent highway.


> I was walking along the road a while back and noticed a car parked on
> the road outside a house with a note under the wiper. The handscrawled
> note read "this a residential street not a station overflow car park".
> Another person who obviously failed to understand the definition of a
> public highway. If I'd had a pen on me I'd have made a suitable
> addition.


Go on...
 
J

Jon Senior

Guest
JNugent wrote:
> I *explained* my terms and use the word "garaging" as a term of art for "at
> home parking". Why wrote "at home parking" every time, when "garaging" is so
> easily distinguishable from "(any old) parking"?


Tip: When commenting on the correct use of English, it is well worth
double checking for typos (The error is left as an exercise for the reader).

> What I'm saying is that no-one should be allowed to permanently arrogate a
> stretch of the highway for their own exclusive use. It is that arrogation of
> a public asset for private use which is the selfish act.


You are right. Use of any part of the public highway for parking is
selfish. This of course extends to both at-home parking, and
journey's-end parking. Parked cars pose a threat to pedestrian
visibility when trying to cross roads and to cyclists both on account of
reduced visibility and the danger of being "doored". Can we assume then
that you would support the removal of all vehicles onto off-road parking
such as centralised multi-storey or underground complexes. There would
have to be some exemption for deliveries, but since the parking
attendents would no longer have to worry about issuing tickets to
"normal" cars, they would have time to monitor deliveries for any sign
of abuse.

> There are societies
> which do not allow it. Perhaps (especially in places like London), we should
> be considering trying the same approach. It might work much better as an
> anto-congestion measure than fining people who have business in Central
> London, and it might well ease congestion in the suburbs as well as on the
> capital's roads in general.


Strange... you see "fine", I see "toll". If you just pay the "toll", you
wont get the "fine". ;-)

> After a little thought (difficult for you, I know), you'll probably get to
> grips with the concept: "all of the road is for everyone's use".


Indeed, see above for my (mini-)treatise on the elimination of on-road
parking.

> We certainly have garaging facilities ("off-street parking" if you prefer
> the estate-agent's term) for all our vehicles.
>
>
>>[1] From OED complete edition:

>
>
> [snipped incomplete definition - and respectfully suggest that the PP looks
> up the phrase "term of art"]


"Term of art":
http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/tutorials/definitions/term_art.html (First
hit).

trans: the use of legalese to obfuscate plain English.

To explain why your concept of garaging is meaningless I offer the
following:

I stand on a residential road. Without knowing the owners of the various
cars that I can see parked, I do not know whether they are local or
visitors. A parked car is a parked car; it still appropriates some
quantity of the public highway for personal use. The proximity of that
vehicle to the owner's property has no bearing on the selfishness of the
act.

Jon